That depends on the definition of knowledge. The Deposit of Faith is closed, but understanding of the Deposit and its consequences can increase.

You would all do well to come up to Brantford, Ontario, to Saint Basil the Great parish, and have a talk with him.

Would it be fair to say that theologians consider the body of knowledge of their discipline to be composed of the 1) deposit plus 2) commentary on the deposit? If so, does that mean the only new contributions are commentary?

I don't have my copy of Nichols with me, nor do I remember the name of the gentleman who wrote on the sources of revelation, but in general, the source data of theology is revelation.

Source data of the deposit, or source data of the commentary?

right.

Theology is the study of God and things as they are in relation to God. There is a "natural theology", but that really is the culmination of metaphysics. This is knowing God as Prime Mover, the First Good, etc... those things we can naturally discover about Him

Theology deals with God as He is, as He has revealed Himself...and things in relation to that

I like Lagrange's break down of theology

1. Positive theology- the study of the depositum fidei. This includes Biblical studies, Patristics, magisterial documents. All of these sources are studied under the guidance of the Church

2. Analytical theology- Analysis of revealed truths, especially the more fundamental. Lagrange's example: "The Word was made flesh. Theological analysis shows that the sentence means: The Word, who is God, became man." He says it may be grammatical, but is usually conceptual. This is basically pinning down what exactly the fundamental truths mean

3. Apologetic theology- This step of theology works to show that this or that truth really is in the deposit of faith and also to show that it isn't impossible, i.e absurd or contradictory. This study does not seek to demonstrate positively this or that mystery. As Lagrange says "The only thing attempted in this apologetic procedure is to show that there is no evident contradiction in the proposition which enunciates the dogma."

4. Manifestive theology- Lagrange writes: On the fourth level theology uses arguments of appropriateness, to illumine, not to demonstrate, revealed truth. Thus, to clarify the dogma, say, of the Word's eternal generation or that of the redemptive Incarnation, theology appeals to the following principle: God is by nature self-diffusive; and the more elevated good is, the more intimately and abundantly does it communicate itself. Hence it is appropriate that God, the supreme Good, communicate His entire nature in the eternal generation of the Word, and that the Word be incarnate for our salvation. These mysteries, so runs the common theological doctrine, cannot be proved, and cannot be disproved, and although they do have a persuasive probability, they are held with certitude by faith alone.

5. Explicative theology- Demonstrates, in strict form, a truth implicit in a revealed truth. Not a truth deduced from two revealed truths, but implcit in one. Lagrange writes: To illustrate: take the sentence, The Word, which was God, was made flesh. Against the Arians, that sentence was thus expressed: The Word, consubstantial with the Father, was made man. This consubstantiality with the Father, whatever some writers say, is much more than a theological conclusion, deduced illatively from a revealed
truth. It is a truth identical, only more explicitly stated, with that found in the Prologue of St. John's Gospel.

6. Illative theology- He subdivides this

a. A conclusion, found in revelation implicitly or explicitly, that can be deduced from two revealed truths. This serves to unite the teachings in theology into a coherent whole. "To illustrate, let us take these two statements: first, "Jesus is truly God," second, "Jesus is truly man." From these two statements there follows, by a strictly illative process, this third statement: Jesus has two minds and two wills. And this third truth is elsewhere explicitly revealed, in the words of Jesus Himself: "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt."

b. A conclusion necessarily following from two revealed truths, not revealed elsewhere. Most think that such a truth is proper matter for a dogma, since it is manifested from two revealed truths.

c. A conclusion derived from a revealed truth and a natural truth. This truth lies not in the domain of dogma, but theological science. It might be infallibly defined, but it isn't a dogma, since it rests on a natural truth, not a revealed one. It is closer to faith if the revealed truth is the major premise, closer to natural reason if the natural truth is


This might help illustrate the subject matter of theology (at least in the manner it handles theology). Of course, the material sources are the bible, the organ of tradition, etc.

Best theologian of the 20th century? Fr. Reginald Garrigou Lagrange, OP

Best living theologians? Not sure. Most pale with the giants, even of the recent past. I cannot even think of any who match Balthasar, and I have litle taste myself for him. The best writers I know are "specialists", moral theologians, biblical theology, etc. I wouldn't be suprised if the best theologian living was some monk in a cloister that will only be known after his death....

Oh gosh..I forgot about Lagrange..I agree.

Am just getting into Balthasar myself...am working on Mysterium Paschal.

I like Analytical Theology best...

Gracie

Didn't he produce the definitive theological text on the predestination/free will conundrum?

Everything I have ever seen from or heard of Father Hardon has been great. Not only was he a good theologian but a Holy man as well.

Mark Shea in his book "Making Senses Out of Scripture" quoted Father Hardon as saying the Church did not require us to believe the Genesis account as real: that we did not have to accept the idea of talking snakes. This is in direct contradiction to the findings of the 1909 PBC concerning the same topic.

So, take yer pick: Either Mr. Shea misquoted Fr. Hardon, or Fr. Hardon is not exactly in sinq with Catholic teaching.

There is no such thing (as a definitive text, that is)

I almost slipped the word "arguably" in there - in hindsight, I probably should have.

I can't believe a good Jesuit-trained person would ever even hint that a Dominican had the last word in this debate!

Just wait until I break out Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J as a fine example of a great 20th century theologian - just kidding.

I would still cast my vote for Benedict XVI followed by Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. Dulles is so well respected as a theologian that he is often called upon during USCCB meetings to settle perplexing theological issues. He has also become much more 'tradition-minded' as he as aged.

Unfortunately he is also become very "rosy".... when he visited my college a few people had to refrain from chuckling when he described the Roman's pontiff's relatioship with the Church in the US...on all theological points he was dead on, even talked about the heresy of Americanism and defended Leo XIII on that...but when it came to bucking up to the current reality, well he made it sound as if all bishops, especially the USCCB as a whole, were living models of obedience to the pope...this in the same diocese where a certain Cardinal publically said that certain orders from Rome were nullified in his archdiocese...by himself.

The Geico Gecko is the Devil!

Teilhard de Chardin is the favourite Catholic philosopher of our Catholic Prime Minister Paul Martin, who brought in gay marriage btw.

:), PED...I tried to find a little person who was turning green at the whole Teilhard subject..but I like yours better.

Gracie